Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Not this time...

We blogged yesterday about Father Time catching up with Michael Hussey and Ricky Ponting. Then yesterday afternoon we had the pleasure of watching a gem of an innings from a man who is older than both of them.

Students of the game will remember that Sachin Tendulkar almost scored a maiden test hundred against New Zealand at Napier in 1990. He was dismissed for 88, caught by John Wright from Danny Morrison's bowling, and Tendulkar was aged just 16 years at the time, having debuted against Pakistan in November 1989. 22 years on, he is still piling on the runs.

But he won't get his 100th international century today. As stumps approached last night, his innings was ended by an absolute jaffa of a delivery from Peter Siddle which nipped back through the gate to hit the top of Tendulkar's off stump. Prior to that, he had played shots all around the MCG on his way to 73 including eight fours and a six. It was a masterful knock from the Little Master, but sadly one that will end without that milestone that he so keenly seeks.

Sachin Tendulkar is far and away the best batsmen of the modern era. With more than 15,000 test runs to his credit (including 51 test match centuries) he has set records that may never be broken. His longevity is exceptional, and his status as one of the all-time greats is assured.

But is Tendulkar better than Don Bradman? That, dear readers, is the $64,000 question; whaddya reckon?


Tinman said...

Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Kallis and probably a dozen others are/were better than the gutless Ocker!

Tendulkar is by far the best ever.

jabba said...


Adolf Fiinkensein said...

What a silly question!

Bradman played when there were far fewer tests available, no ODIs and no protective gear other than pads, gloves and box.

Not to mention relative test batting averages.

Tendulkar is brilliant but better than Bradman? Not by a country mile.

smttc said...

Have to agree with Adolf.

Look at the comparative test averages. They tell you all you need to know and are in any event about all you can compare between Tendulkar and Bradman.

Tinman said...

Adolf, Bradman, the man who used his position to avoid fighting in WWII according to some, had no video analysis of his game, fieldsmen who were often unfit - couldn't catch, couldn't throw, couldn't run and sometimes couldn't bend -, no demand to play ODI and candyfloss stuff as well as real cricket and when the great and good Douglas Jardine worked him out the bastard went crying to the slime (and anyone else silly enough to listen) like a little girl.

Tendulkar hasn't been able to send the bowlers in first on rubbish wickets, hasn't been able to play against bowlers unable to grip the ball due to wet wickets but has been faced with bloody awful conditions and wickets in New Zealand, West Indies, Africa and Asia.

Tendulkar has also not tried to force a team out of international cricket (to the point where his own country refused to play tests against them for many years) because he failed the only time he played against them

Tendulkar's life and career has been ten times as hard as the Ocker bastard.

He is far better both as a cricketer and as a man than the Ocker bastard.

jabba said...

what Tinman say is correct and applies to other sports like tennis and golf. In the old days, if you had talent and skills you could go far. These days, a player of lesser talant/skill can practice his (her) arse off and be competitive as they are all professionals. Also there are more test nations such as Sri Lanka and dare I say that even good old NZ are more competitive.
Also, once the ball went flying towards Bradmans head he was hopeless whereas Tendulkar would bash them to the boundry

pdm said...

jabba - Bradman never played a test against NZ. Australia did not consider NZ to be good enough until (I think) the early 70's - until then they sent B teams and played 3 day `tests'.